frank b. robinson - the god nobody knows

8/14/2019 Frank B. Robinson - The God Nobody Knows

1/91

THE GOD NOBODY KNOWS

by

Dr. Frank B. RobinsonFounder of

PSYCHIANA

1930 by Frank B. Robinson

Moscow Publishing Company

Moscow, Idaho

This edition courtesy of

Northwoods Divine Science Resource Center

Wisconsin

* INTENDED FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION *

1930 by Frank B. Robinson Northwoods Divine Science Resource Center, Wisconsin


2/91


3/91

Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passedby, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THEUNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye IGNORANTLY worship, Him declare I unto you.

-- The Bible.

Dedicatory

The light is breaking. Over a world cursed for the past thousands of years withthe black, clammy, cold, dismal shroud of religious dogma and superstition - the Sunof Righteousness is rising over the hilltops, and its rays are beginning to penetratethe darkness. The clouds of night are dispelling themselves under the mercilessglare of the Light of the Living God.

All over the world are those kindred souls who are willing to risk the wrath andenmity of the church, knowing such to be harmless now that the true Light isbreaking. Often it is necessary for such souls to tread the winepress alone, andamongst the scoffs and jeers of those who think they know God.

To all such worthy souls, standing alone on the truths of God, and in spite ofreligious opposition - this book is dedicated. May the Power of the Living God succorand sustain all of such.

Frank. B. Robinson

Introductory

Let it be distinctly understood that but one motive activates the release of thisbook. That one motive is that a little more light of the mighty power of God may shine

into human hearts through its release, and that much of the superstition and traditionsurrounding God may be eliminated once and forever. For I shall mince no words. Ishall be kind and shall write with a heart full of love to all, but a spade will be called aspade, and no matter what truths are shown to exist in this book, you may dependupon it I am sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that they do exist - otherwise the bookwould not have been written.

I am not in the slightest degree interested in what is told to me about Godunless reasonable assurance and proof of such statements is made plain. In theabsence of any proof and reasonable assurance, as a Psychologist I must draw theinference that the chances of these statements being wrong are equally as great asare the chances of their being right.

As a Psychologist I would not be in the slightest degree interested if all thedenominations and religions in the world swore to me on a stack of bibles that theirindividual religion was the right one. They all claim that. Nor would I be interested if allthe high officials of any of the outstanding religious denominations begged me toaccept their doctrines. Until they gave me full proof of their ministryI should notbelieve them.

3



4/91

Not that I believe them to be dishonest at all, but I know somewhat of the historyof most of the religions masquerading as agents of God and, in the light of what I doknow of them, common honesty makes me inquire diligently as to whether or notthere might or might not exist a Real God- about which these various and prolificreligions know nothing at all.

I realize fully that we are living in a changing age. The truths of yesterday are theuntruths of today. In every phase of life except the religious phase of it, things rapidlychange. Not so in our church life however. Here we are asked to believe what ourforefathers believed in the dark ages. And it does not appear to me as reasonable thatthese old dark-age beliefs are of much value to us today. Certainly the bloodshedwhich bathed the dark ages would not be welcome today. But most of it was in thename of God. Certainly also it is hardly reasonable to expect every other phase of lifeto progress and our religious life to stand still.

To stand still is to stagnate and to die and the subject is quite open to questionwhether or not the structure we have with us today called the church has not reachedthat stagnant stage, from which death is but a short distance. And one thing is

certain - if this church structure as we have it, is filled with the Holy Spirit as itclaims - it will never die - but if, on the other hand such contentions are incorrect, andthis church knows nothing about God as He exists, then it might very easily be a factthat this stagnant or death period has arrived.

I leave it to my readers to pass upon the question as to whether or not thechurch has very much of a substantial nature to offer pertaining to our own spiritualand physical welfare - which is of equal importance. No one has ever returned fromthe beyond and in the face of this fact it can safely be assumed that the life we areliving here is the only life we know anything about. I am not saying there is not anotherlife, or a continuation of this same life on another plane, but I am saying that if there isno God in existence who can give us the pleasures and joys of this one life - the only

life we know anything about - then it is questionable certainly whether there be a Godat all or not.

However - as my readers will discover - there most certainly IS a God that canand will and does give us our hearts desires here and now. We do not have to wait tillwe are within the veil to receive these blessings but can have them now - when theywill be most appreciated. And if there be such a God as that, then it is quite immaterialwhat He may be called or how He operates. One thing is certain - one may, if he sochoose, demonstrate the actuality and power of the Living God we are soon todiscuss.

As far as I personally am concerned - well - you had better forget me. Do notmake the very fatal mistake of looking to the man instead of to the message. It is in

doing just this that the christian church has so miserably failed. You must not dothat.

I am probably one of the most ordinary men that God ever put breath into - soplease do not consider me for one moment. The only redeeming feature there mightbe about me is the dogged determination I have displayed in my search for the thingsof God. The searcher is a poor thing - I can assure you of that. But sometimes in the

4



5/91

workings of God it so happens that the weak thing is taken to confound the mightyand the thing that is not, to bring to naught the thing that is.

Whatever little light any of my words are able to throw on this mighty question isonly as a grain of sand on the seashore. But if you will grasp the little faint glimmer oflight as you will find it in this book - then I shall be happy and shall have done my little

part in the entire scheme of things - the grandeur of which might very well make all ofus bare our heads in awe and wonder.

FRANK B. ROBINSON,June 13th, 1929, Moscow, Idaho

5



6/91

Chapter I

TRUTH TRIUMPHANT

There are approximately one hundred and twenty million people in this United

States of ours and probably ninety percent of them are possessed of an intensedesire to knowthe facts about themselves, the world they live in, and its God.The day is happily gone by when the average thinking man and woman is

satisfied to accept any old theory which may be presented, regardless of whopresents it or what the theory or teaching may be.

Men and women want to know. And they want to know as speedily as possible.They do not care from what source the truth comes just as long as it is the truth. Nordo they care one iota for the medium through which such truth may be presented - justas long as it is the truth and just as long as it gives to that man or woman a betterunderstanding of lifes scheme, and tends to make lifes load a little easier to bear.

It was not always so. Up until the last two decades you and I were taught

certain supposed truths which we were commanded to accept without making theslightest attempt to ascertain whether or not such supposed truths were actually thetruth, or whether or not they had the slightest particle of truth in them. Just as long asour parents and our religious teachers told us certain things were so we weresupposed to accept those statements without question.

And up until the past few years this was done. But men and women are fastchanging. The old creeds, beliefs, dogmas, traditions, have been given much timeand many opportunities to prove their merit or demerit, and for the most part a goodmany of them have been weighed in the balances - and found wanting.

Deep down in the human hearts of all of us, sometimes hidden so deep thatwe fear it can never be resurrected, there is a desire, an intense desire, to know. We

cannot help that desire being there - we did not put it there - but there it is and there itwill remain until the human race as a whole actually discovers the secret of theuniverse and the mystery of life.

Never was there such an intensified effort on the part of so many sincere,honest, thinking people to know the truth as there is now. And in the face of suchattempts it will follow most assuredly that man willfind out and willknow the hiddenstory as it actually exists. Were man to be perfectly satisfied with current explanationsand traditions then by no possible means could he be able to grasp whatever newtruths there might be all around him. He would be perfectly happy in whatever he hadbeen taught and consequently, under no circumstances, could there ever break toman any new light whatsoever. But in the very moment when either one individual

man or the entire race decides that they are going to actually find outthe truth as itexists, then in that moment are they headed towards the goal. It may take some timebefore they reach it - and it may not even be in sight - but reach it they will, sooner orlater, and nothing can stop them.

This sentiment is very rampant nowadays and is growing day by day. Having itsorigin in what the religious world would call agnosticism this movement toward the

6



7/91

truth is gaining impetus every day and will inevitably lead to the end of the trail wherelies - the answer. And in passing let me add that the end of the trail may not be as faraway in the future as many imagine.

Strange as it may seem, we have looked for the solution of the riddle of life tocome through some religious organization or through some religious teaching. There

is nothing, however, on which to predicate such a statement. Far more probable is itthat the sciences will come closer to revealing whatever truth there may be than willany system or systems of religion. And it may be, and probably will be, that when thecurtain is fully lifted, we shall find both science and allreligion have done their littlepart in bringing the truth to this earth.

To those who are saturated and steeped in religious dogma, tradition, andsuperstition, this statement of course will brand me as an unbeliever or a heretic. Itwill be immediately taken for granted that I know nothing of God and am in a sad stateof being - a lost soul so to speak.

Well and good, for I deem it an honor and a compliment to stand out from thereligious masses and dare to make an independent investigation of such religious

things. I deem it an honor to take my stand with those who will not accept whateverhas been handed down to them by their forefathers as the truth, without making asintelligent an effort as possible to find out whether or not such hand-me-downsactually are true, or whether or not they are false. Personally, I am not in the slightestdegree interested in the opinion of any religious sect, organization, or denomination.What I want above all else is to endeavor to throw upon the entire tangled mass what,to me, seems to be a ray of light, and what, sooner or later, might lead men andwomen into a better understanding of the things they are so earnestly endeavoring tounderstand.

It is hardly to be expected that any one man can divulge the entire truth. But it isto be expected that sooner or later the true light mustbreak, and, as has every other

light along these lines broken, it mustand willbegin through someone who has notbeen willing to accept the traditions of the day. Had Columbus been convinced that nosuch a land as America existed he would not have made his expedition, and you and Imight not be here. In his own mind he would have been satisfied that no such a landexisted and, as far as he was concerned, that would have been the end of it. But sucha land didexist, and had not Columbus attempted to discover it then sooner or latersomeone else would.

Had one mentioned but a few years back the existence of the cosmic ray, madefamous by that mighty researcher of truth, Dr. Milliken, he would have been laughed toscorn and probably worse than that would have happened to him. But the cosmic raydoes exist, and it always has existed, and it always will exist, in spite of those who

might have scoffed and who still do scoff at the idea.Of one thing you may be sure. You may be sure that what is truth is truth

whether believed or not. You and I may not believe that a drop of water is composed oftwo gases - but that does not alter the fact. If we deny it we show our own ignorance ofthe laws of chemistry involved. And if we are not open to conviction and willing to beshown that such a law does exist, then we brand ourselves as - well - unintelligent.

7



8/91

That sounds better than the word I was going to use.And so it is in the eternal search for truth, no matter what the truth is which is

sought after. In this book we are endeavoring to discover a little about the truth as itexists in the spiritual realm. By this I do not mean in the so-called religious realm,because we may see before long that the realm which calls itself religious and which

accedes to itself all and exclusive authority regarding the things of God (although noone else accedes to them such authority) might be a good deal farther from the truthsof God as they actually exist than are some others who make no profession of religionwhatsoever. At least not in the commonly accepted use of the term.

It might very easily be that these good folks, ambassadors of God as theyterm themselves, are living in ignorance of the very principles they think they areteaching, and it may be further that, like those who do not believe in the existence ofthe cosmic ray, they might be denying the very power they think they are teaching. Inother words, these good men and women who have given us the many creeds andreligious beliefs extant today, and who are still teaching them, might very easily beliving in utter ignorance of the God they believe themselves to know and represent. I

do not say that this is so, but it might be so. Whether it is or not the reader will decidefor himself before the book is ended.

And if these same religious leaders in our religious denominations denounceand scoff at any other teaching than their own - which they usually do - then they alsoare in the same class with the ones who deny the existence of the cosmic ray - eventhough it is known to exist.

This attitude of mind is often called holding the faith. Such bigots deemthemselves to be standing fast in the traditions which they have been taught and tostand fast in anytradition in this day and age is to stagnate and petrify. This appliesto religious life as well as to any other phase of life or its activities.

However, the time is here when many thousands inside our present religious

or church structure are beginning to question the advisability of continuing to standfast in the traditions they have been taught, and are wondering if, after all, there isanything substantial or true to the entire structure they have made themselves a partof.

And this is not to be wondered at. On every hand are heard whisperings ofthings heretofore deemed supernatural or divine. Some friend has been wonder-fully healed of an ailment of years of duration, either by this method or by that method.Sometimes it is the feat of a Psychologist; at other times it is through the tenets of avitally different religious structure, this structure laying all the stress on mind andnone, if any, on the physical body at all.

No matter by what means these things have been accomplished, the fact

remains that they have been accomplished and this fact - if none other - is causinggood christian church members by the thousands to wonder. Some scientist ofnational or international reputation makes some startling discovery; somePsychologist or Psychotherapist does the seemingly impossible, and the churchmember wonders. And well he may, it is a good healthy sign.

One hears of a certain person who up to a certain period of his or her life was a8



9/91

total failure. He or she begins the study of the New Psychology, or some other systemof mental instruction (sometimes spiritual) and, lo and behold, the impossiblehappens again. Such a one takes a new lease on life; his or her old desires aresupplanted by new desires and ambitions, and a new man or woman blossoms forth,daring and doing.

That there is a power entirely outside of the church and a power which makesno profession of religion of any kind, is being admitted by christian people by thethousands. And as is natural, the longing is created in their own lives for this samepower. They hear Sunday after Sunday of the mighty power of their own God, but invain do they search for it. If they are tolerably honest with themselves and theirneighbors they will admit that as far as their having experienced any divine power ofany sort in their lives, they have not to date experienced it. Some of them are braveenough to cut loose from the system, while most of them, more through force of habitthan anything else, just hang on, having a fairly good social time, etc.

For experiments sake recently I asked several hundred church members todefine for me the experience they went through when they joined the church. I asked

them what they knew of the experience of being born again, which experience issupposed to be a requisite of church membership, or, in other words, membership inthe invisible church of Christ.

Not in a single instance could I get a clear, concise answer to my question. Notin a single instance did I even get the admission that any change whatsoever hastaken place in their lives. The sum and substance of their answers to me was thatthey believed on the Lord Jesus Christ and trusted Him as their personal saviour.But pressing my question a little further and insisting upon an answer to my questionsaviour from what?, the answer invariably was well - from sin. And when insistingupon an answer to my question as to what sin was, not one of them knew nor coulddefinitely define it. To one it was one thing, to another it was another thing. Surely on a

question as vital as that one is there should at least have been a sign of unanimity ofopinion.

But they all seemed in the dark, and in the majority of instances I gained theadmission that as far as they knew, they were no different since their conversionthan they were before. Here let me add that the phrases conversion and joining thechurch are supposed to be synonymous. One must have the one before he can dothe other, at least that is according to the creeds and articles of faith.

From years of observation I believe I am justified in saying that I have yet to seea man or woman who gave me the slightest evidence that he or she knew anything ofa power gained in the church, and which in itself was of divine or supernaturalorigin. It has been my pleasure to meet many mighty men of God, leaders of their

respective denominations. I have had close and intimate conversation with them. Inmany cases they have come to me for professional advice. And I speak very truly whenI make the assertion that it is my opinion very few of them actually believe what theypreach, and practically none of them can make satisfactory proof of their being joinedto Christ or being in any way different from me.

For many long years I watched them. I vainly endeavored to find whatever power9



10/91

there was supposed to be in the church, and in order to keep absolutely honest withmyself I was compelled to abandon the search in its entirety. I failed to find theslightest evidence either of conversion or of any other divine or supernatural

power in any church system or in any man making a profession of any of these so-called religions.

I found many who had succeeded in hypnotizing themselves into believing theywere saved, but in not one single instance was I able to find one little scrap ofevidence that such a professor possessed any power that was not inherent in me, orwhich was or could be called divine or supernatural.

And if honest with themselves, I am of the opinion that practically nine-tenths ofthe present day church members will admit this self-same thing. What they actuallywould like to do would be to contact some power or other which wouldgive them thethings their hearts crave for, and, taking seriously the promises of the church that it,by reason of its divine origin can so satisfy, they have allied themselves with it only toknow, in the vast majority of cases, that they did not find what they expected to find.

And being honest with themselves, many of them rapidly discarding the entire

thing. The theater takes the place of the prayer-meeting, and it is but right that itshould. At the theater a certain amount of pleasure is to be had. While at the prayer-meeting - well, its popularity is evidenced by the thousands of church members whodo not attend it.

Let my readers distinctly understand that this book is not written with anythought in my mind of attacking the church. I have neither the time nor the inclination todo that. But it is written in an effort to find out, if possible, whether or not there might bea God which the church knows nothing about. That is the object of this book.

Its author believes that God, as He actually exists and manifests, is so farremoved from the God preached by every Protestant denomination throughout theentire world, that there is not the slightest comparison between them. He believes that

ignorant but well-meaning fathers of the church ages ago transmitted to us a visionof God which is erroneous in its entirety. He believes further that God as He is andexists, and as Jesus preached Him, is not by any manner of means the God the

present day church knows anything about.If this opinion of the writer is correct, and he believes it is, then there must be

another God about whom nothing, or very little, is known. This the writer believes tobe a fact. He believes there is in existence the God nobody knows.

10



11/91

Chapter II

RELIGION

At this point it will be well to consider the present religious structure as it exists

today in our land. I shall confine myself to Protestantism, as there are moreProtestants than Roman Catholics. The one worships Christ while the other worshipsthe Virgin Mary. That, I believe, is the main difference. In the Roman Catholic church itshead is the Pope, who is presumed to have direct and divine power which wasdirectly transferred down to him through a line of other Popes, the first of whom wasPeter.

In Protestantism we have four or five leading denominations, all preachingabout the same thing, Theyclaim that every member of their denomination is part ofthe bride of Christ. They also claim that they are a part of an invisible church whichis at present operating on this earth, and they hold out the hope that some day JesusHimself will descend from Heaven with a shout and will catch them all up in the air

with Him, to be forever with the Lord.The Roman Catholic claims that the Protestant church is heretic and therefore

outside of the pale of either Heaven or salvation. The Protestant church in turnclaims that the Roman church is of the anti-Christ order and therefore outside of thepale of either Heaven or salvation itself.

According to the present Protestant structure the millions of Mohammedans,Chinese, Japanese, and the many other races and denominations are all wrong.Their religions are all false. To such an extent is this attitude or belief implanted intheir minds that they actually send missionaries into these foreign countries in aneffort to convertthe poor heathen who does not believe as they do.

In other words, each and every system of religion extant has its own beliefs,

usually its own God, and each and every other race and belief and denomination ispositively in error. The christian thinks that the millions of Mohammedans aredoomed. The Mohammedan thinks the christians are in the same boat. Neither cansee far enough or broad enough to admit that he maynot have the entire truth. He isnot willing to admit that the other fellow may have some little smattering of the truthregardless of what he thinks.

In every case it seems to be taken for granted that each one is right and theentire rest are wrong. As a matter of fact, however, if any one of them possessed theentire truth the rest of them would be glad enough to accept it, and would come tothem by the thousands for it. And again, if any one of them had the entire truth, the restof them would fall by the weight of their own error.

It is hardly to be expected then, that the God of any of these warring factions isto be taken as the real God. They originate in entirely different manners and areentirely different beings. But each individual system is convinced that its system ofreligion is rightand the others are wrong. But the thinking man and woman will easilysee that the probability is that none of them have seen the truth as it exists. Eachthinks it has, and each proselytizes its own religious system for all it is worth, getting

11



12/91

as many converts from the other sect as it possibly can.And the christian is no better than the rest of them. In fact he is more active

than any of the others in that he aggressively sends his missionaries into foreigncountries in an attempt to make those of a different faith see things as the christiansees them. The point I wish to make here is that Protestantism is only one of a series

of religions extant in the world today, and it is just as open to question as to theveracity of its doctrines and teachings as are any of the others. One remarkablecharacteristic about all these systems of religion is that each insists that it is the onlytrue religion. All others are false.

The christian advertises the only true God, and so do the others. It is mycontention that as long as that attitude exists and the christians are satisfied thatthey have the realreligion, then by no manner of means can they ever see the largerpicture until such an attitude changes. As far as they are concerned the cosmic raydoes not exist. But it does just the same.

The most hopeful sign in the christian religion today is that its members aredropping out of it and losing interest in it rapidly. It no longer has much hold on them,

and certain is it that a great many of the tenets which it has so valiantly fought for inpast ages are very rapidly being discarded, not only by the individual members but bythe heads of these denominations themselves. That is a very healthy sign, and inpassing may I state that this marked dropping off is not only noticeable in thechristian religion but in others also. (If the correct religion was to be decided by avote of the majority as is done in our national elections, the Mohammedans wouldhave it over all the rest. They outnumber the Christians by about sixty million.)

At this point it may be well to state that instead of any of these many and variedsystems of religion having much of the divine or supernatural in them, they are allpractically man-made. Some genius has arisen, sometimes a man and sometimes awoman, and as a result an entirely new religious system springs into existence,

usually with quite a rich financial reward for its promoter. I do not see where there isany evidence of either divinity or supernaturalness in any prevailing religion today,unless it be one recently founded by a woman which practically puts a spiritualmeaning on the scriptures and which offers the key to them. I believe this system ofreligion has come nearer to revealing the truths of the Living God as they actually existthan has any other system in existence today.

I do not admit that it was founded in the absolute truth, but I am of the opinionthat it has opened up an entirely new line of thought in the spiritual realm. I refer ofcourse to Christian Science, and while I do not consider it to be a religion as the oldreligions go, it is more than possible that it has more of the truths of God in it thanhave the rest of them combined. One of the beloved truths of most christians is the

fact that their God is in the sky; their reward is in Heaven and their happiness inthe future.

Christian Science did one thing if it did no more, and that was to attempt torelieve some of the sufferings man is prone to right here and now. And that issomething that the other denominations have utterly failed to do to date. In the case ofillness or death the minister insists it is all in the will of God. Every unforeseen and

12



13/91

foreseen happening, be it good or be it bad, is directly attributed to the will of God.None can possibly know, however, just what the great will of God is until they reachthe other side and then, after standing before a great white throne of judgmentthose making their grades are saved while those failing are damned.

In the christian religion the doctrine of eternal punishment and torture is

stressed a little harder than it is in the other religions, and this is probably one of thereasons that it is losing ground at such a rate. It is hard to make the averageAmerican believe a doctrine like that. It seems to be opposed to all reason and it is myopinion that anything connected with anyreligion that is unreasonable is false. Forinstance, I do notbelieve the hell-fire theory - not for a moment do I believe it. Nor do Ibelieve the story of Noah and his ark. There are many other things also which arepreached by modern Protestantism that I do not believe, and the chances are many toone that you do not believe them either.

At this point the question will probably arise in the minds of my readers as tohow and why these varied systems sprang into existence. From whence did theycome? Who started them all? Why is there any need of them? And to risk being

termed heretical I will state that it is my opinion that this world in its entirety would bebetter off without any of them. We hear on every hand of the wonderful power for goodthe church is in the world today, but I do not believe it.

We are told that were the church taken out of the world today it would very soondestroy itself in the throes of sin and crime. I do not believe that either. Suchstatements are only made by those in the church and are made in the interests oftheir own business. If I were asked my candid opinion as to the actual merit of theProtestant church in the world today, I would state that I believe it to be the greateststumbling block in the pathway of Gods actual presence and existence the world hasever known.

I believe that by bringing into existence a man-made religion and a man-made

God, it is obscuring the real God as He actually exists. And all this notwithstanding thefact that the real God as He exists is the very same God that Jesus of the christianreligion taught about. In other words, I believe that through false interpretation, dogma,tradition, superstition, all of these coupled with a willful blindness, the real GodasJesus Christ came to proclaim Him, has been made an impossibility by theinterpolating of the christian church of a God of their own making - this God being amillion miles removed from Godas He actually exists today.

I am not blaming the present day religious leaders, only to the extent that theykeep their eyes closed to new scientific and psychological facts as they are advanced.These leaders, while, in the main, admitting that their religion is powerless, will notcome forward and openly seek the truth. They will nottell their congregations of the

doubts they entertain in their own minds. They would lose their positions if they did.Signs are hopeful however, very hopeful, for, as a certain gentleman said not so manycenturies ago: You can fool some of the people all the time - you can fool all thepeople some of the time - but you cant fool all the people all the time.And that timeis here now.

13



14/91

Chapter III

THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION

We have then a world picture of the religious structure as it exists. Briefly it is as

follows: There are probably sixteen or seventeen major systems of religion inoperation at the present time. We may safely say that each one of them reallyconsiders that it is the only true and real religion. This is perhaps but natural whenone considers the point of view from which such a premise is taken. They see fromthe inside of their own structure, and to them every other system is false andgrounded in error.

The christian would have us believe that his God is the one and only supremebeing. From the christian point of view all others must of necessity be false since heholds the keys to the only true religion and the only true God. It is somewhat difficult toget a clear view of which part of the christians God they actually believe most in as Heis divided into three parts. We shall note the divisions later. It seems to the intent and

careful investigator however, that the great majority of the christians worship isshowered upon what they care to term the second part of the trinity - Jesus Christ. Ithink it is safe to say that more talk is made about Him than about any other part ofthis supposed trinity.

As a matter of fact it appears to the student that the worship of this man calledChrist has over-shadowed by far the worship of God the Father and of their God -the Holy Spirit. They seem to be able to give us something tangible about this Christ,but they appear to be somewhat at sea when pressed for a definite and understand-able statement as to what either God the Father or God the Holy Spirit is. All theirefforts seem to be centered on this man Christ.

To even suggest that Mahommet might be as divine as Jesus was would be

considered the height of fanaticism by the christian, while to think even for a momentthat Confucius might himself have had a little smattering of the divinity in him wouldbe a very blasphemous statement to make - according to our christian friends.

And the same thing applies to practically every other religious system inexistence today. You cannot tell a Mohammedan that his is a false belief any morethan you can tell the christian that his is a false belief. As far as actual facts go theymight both be false but it would be impossible to convince either one of them of it. Letme modify that just a little by saying that, except perhaps in the last ten years, to tryand convince either of these two or, for that matter, any other religionist of the falsity intheir existing systems would have been a well-nigh impossible feat to attempt.

The careful observers note a decided trend towards unbelief of the teachings in

the church today. This is especially noticeable in the christian religion. Thoseholding membership in it now, and denying in toto the very fundamentals upon whichthe structure was raised, are openly admitting that the doctrines of fifty years agocannot apply today. They are even willing to admit that their entire canon of scripturein its entirety cannot be taken literally today as it was in the past years.

This is a startling and rather damaging admission to make but we hear it on14



15/91

every side. In fact, it is not an uncommon thing to hear a so-called christian ministerstate publicly from his pulpit that he does not believe that this Jesus was other than aman - even as you and I. Others there are who very freely admit that their bible, onceconsidered the divinely inspired word of God - absolutely true from cover to cover,might not, perhaps, be quite as divinely inspired as it has heretofore been

considered. Yes, we believe we note a very decided change in the attitude of manychristians themselves towards their own religion. The cause of this change of heartwe shall look into later.

At this point shall we look into the structure of the christian church a little andsee if we can find any evidence for or against this verity? Rather a daring thing to do,methinks I hear coming from many christians. But it is not daring to a Psychologist atall, as we who have adopted this science as our profession are not in the slightestdegree interested in things as they seem - we are only interested in things as they areknown to exist. So we shall pass by any such epithets which may be hurled at us andlet the evidence speak for itself. The American people as a whole are rather anintelligent class and are very quick to grasp any new truths which may be presented,

especially along scientific or religious lines.Also it is a fact that they are perfectly competent to follow a given line of reason-

ing and to analyze the thoughts advanced. Personally, I am standing on the side-lines.I am merely adducing evidence either for or against the claims that the christianchurch makes. I myself have very definite views as to the verity or stability of theirentire structure, but I do not want to inject them into this book. My large workPsychianagoes fully into that part of the subject.

The christian religion is founded in its entirety on belief in a god as he issupposed to be revealed in a book they use called the bible. And in passing let mestate that every one of the many other religions in existence has also its bible.Therefore the bible of the christian is only one of the many text-books of the

different religious systems. Of course, the claim is made that it comes directly throughand by inspiration of god, but so is that same claim made in practically every othertext-book used by the other systems, and in this sense of the word is no differentfrom these textbooks.

The claim is made, of course, by those in the church that only their own bibleis divinely inspired, all other textbooks being false in their entirety. This same claim,however, is made by every religious system in existence, so that we can readilyunderstand that the claim might very easily be only valid to those who are followers ofthat particular religion. Where perhaps two hundred million people claim that thebible is the only authentic book that god had anything to do with, possibly sixhundred million people deny that statement and replace it with the statement that

theirs is the only true religion and theirs is the only true text-book.My readers will have no difficulty in getting this picture, I believe. When studying

the subject of religion, as indeed when studying any subject, it is essential to a correctanalysis of that subject that it be studied in its entirety. In other words - it would bemanifestly unfair to all other religions in existence if I were to single out one of them,taking itas being religion as a whole. My only reason for treating with the christian

15



16/91

religion is because of the fact that we live in a christian land and were brought up aschristians.

Whether we belong to any church or whether we do not makes not the slightestparticle of difference; we are christian people - and not Mohammedans orBuddhists.

And in this entire book I have consistently endeavored to get - not a one-sidedview of religion - but the larger view as it actually exists in this universe today.I see a picture of millions of the seething masses of human souls floundering

about in the quagmires into which their varied and numerous systems of religiousthought and training have plunged them. I see them all - not just one. I do not takesides with any one of them. What I am interested in is in finding out whether or not theentire structures of all of them are founded in error.

It is hard for me to conceive of any one denomination or system having theentire truth without that truth leavening the whole loaf in mighty quick order. I cannotconceive of any supreme being revealing himself to any one system of religion to theexclusion of all the rest. But that is precisely what the christian would have us believe

has happened.I believe that we may find as we progress that not only the christian religion

but all the rest of them have missed the mark entirely. I have an idea that we may findas we progress that there is in existence a god, which, for the purpose of this book, Ihave chosen to call The God Nobody Knows.

I have digressed a little here, and if you will excuse it we will look into a few ofthe claims of the christian structure in an attempt to see whether or not its logicappeals to us. We shall also discover whether or not the evidence is for its claims oragainst its claims. And this should be what every honest and fair-minded Americanwants to know - whether he be christian or whether he be non-christian. As long asthe cosmic ray is not believed in, it can have no existence for those who do not

believe in its existence; but, let an open-minded, earnest, sincere unbeliever beshown indisputable evidence that his beliefs maybe grounded in error and maybefalse in their entirety, then there is a large possibility that such a one may begin to geta faint glimmer of the true light as it actually exists - provided that he is shown whatthat light is.

The entire christian structure is founded on the bible. I do not capitalize thisword for reasons which will appear later. The christian is instructed to believe thatGod almighty spoke to man of old sometimes by this manner and sometimes by that,telling him exactly what he wanted him to know and asking him to record the entiremessages in a book for the benefit, edification, and salvation of the entire humanrace.

We have been told that the bible is from cover to cover the divinely inspiredword of God. We are further told that not a single error nor mistake is to be foundbetween its covers. And that is as it should be. Were there any single mistake, error,or contradiction to be found within this divinely inspired book, would it not cast atleast a serious doubt on its claims to divinity?

If God almighty, the supreme creator of this universe, gave these divine16



17/91

messages to men and women who lived many thousands of years ago, then it maybe reasonably presumed that He made no mistakes. He by His very nature could notpossibly have made mistakes. And, if, as claimed, this bible is the divinely inspiredword of God, not a single error or false statement or contradiction should ever befound in its pages. And, if we do find errors, false statements and mistakes, I for one

must discard it in its entirety as the holy word of God and divinely inspired from coverto cover.There is little use in mincing words here. There is much less use of beating

around the bush. Either this book is what the christians claim for it - or - it is not. If itshould be discovered that it is notwhat the christians claim for it, then their wholereligious structure as it exists today is founded upon statements and supposed factswhich are in error.

If this be a fact, then one may be perfectly justified in saying that the system ofreligion preached by the christian church today is founded in error. And - if this be afact, then a reasonable presumption is that some of or all of the other systems maybe also founded in error. And if all of them may be founded in error, then it may very

easily be possible that the viewpoints of all of them have not revealed the slightest factabout God as He actually exists.

If the christian bible is notwhat we have been told it is, then a reasonablepresumption is that the vedas might also be mistaken in theirgospel. The christiansays they are. The Buddhists say the christians are.

Mind you, I am not saying that they are all wrong and I am not saying that theyare all right. I am merely endeavoring to find out whether or not the text-book of thechristian religion - upon which the entire structure as it exists today is founded - istrue or false. That is all.

When we find that out, it will be time enough to advance any theories we mighthold or discoveries we might have made - but our first duty is to find out beyond a

reasonable shadow of a doubt whether this teaching is from God or not. Personally - Iwant to know. I have a wonderful seven-year-old little boy whom I want to enjoywhatever this life has for him. And I want that boy to know the actual truth of God if itcan be found.

I could raise him to be a Catholic, or a Methodist, or a Presbyterian, or anythingelse if I so minded, but to date I have been utterly unable to find any spiritual light, orany scientific facts about God in any of the present religious systems. But this shallnot hinder me in my search for God. I have the God-given faculty of thought andanalysis, and I am constitutionally guaranteed the right of free religious thought andspeech, and my entire life is given up to the task I have set myself - and that task isfinding out the truth of the Living God if it can be found out.

We shall see a little later whether I have made a success or a failure of thisattempt.

There is one thing that can never be charged against me and that one thing isthat I ever wrote or spoke from any other desire than to know the truth or to give thetruth, as I believe it to exist, to others.

I do not claim to know it all, nor do I claim to be divinely inspired as some of17



18/91

the bible writers were supposed to be. But I know one thing, and that one thing is this:just as long as you and I swallow whatever has been given us to swallow alongreligious lines, whether it appeals to our reason or not, without making any attempt tofind out whether it is true or not, then just so long are you and I open to criticism. Andmore than that we are very apt to be wrong in what we believe to be the truth -

remember that.This world moves fast these days and the truths of one hundred years ago arethe untruths of today. And the untruths of one hundred years ago may be the truths oftoday. He is a narrow man and that is a narrow organization which takes the attitudethat he or they possess allthe truth. They do notpossess it all. And when that attitudeis adopted then the task is almost a hopeless one of showing these folks that theirhopes might eventually be blasted. Let me repeat, please, that the most inspiringsight to me today is the rank unbelief and doubt which is being openly manifested bythe church members. They are showing a good many signs of manhood in sodoing.

I do not blame them for believing what their parents taught them to believe -

they would have been naughty boys if they had not so believed. But if I read the signsof the times correctly, men and women are sick at heart and sore distressed with thedogmas, traditions, etc., they have been taught. The christian religion has, so tospeak, been weighed in the balance and found wanting.

If there is any spiritual power in the present day church system, then I certainlywould like to know where it is to be found. And by power I mean an actual literal powercoming from God, which power will enable you and me really to enjoy this life righthere and now. I am not in the slightest degree interested in any future home inheaven for I do not believe that any such place, as taught by the christians, exists.There is probably a far more radiant and useful state of existence than that. But what Iwant to know, and to give to the world, if I may, is a few real actual facts about the God

nobody knows.

AUTHORS NOTE:

In case there exists in my readers mind any doubt as to whether or not thechurch is decaying and losing ground at an alarming rate, I call attention to page 20of The Literary Digest of July 5th, 1930, on which page appears an article entitled *The Dangerous Decline of the Church.A subtitle reads: Religion Persists but theChurch Declines.

In the article are facts and figures presented by the Pierce and HedrickCorporation of New York, which corporation acts as counselors for religious, social

and educational institutions. The report comes from this firms research departmentand is released by the Rev. Chas. Stelzle. The corporation suggests that the churchface the facts, and dignify itself by asking for large sums of money with which toconduct its various educational, philanthropic and religious enterprises. Thestatement released by this firm does not state how much money is required, but thisstatistical firm points out that the total gifts from living donors for all religious

18



19/91

purposes to Protestant churches during 1929 did not exceed $520,000 whereas therewas contributed last year for philanthropic purposes in the United States,approximately $2,500,000 and states that there is no doubt that most of this moneywas donated by members of the church.

The article states that after a century of development during which American

Protestantism increased from a membership of seven in each 100 of the populationin 1800, to 24 in each 100 of the population in 1900, Protestantism during the pastthirty years has not increased its ratio of the population by as much as one member

per 100.The report says the banner year in the History of Christendom was 1928, when

the Christian churches in the United States gained 1,000,000 members, whereas in1929 they gained only 300,000. For the first time since the Civil War the MethodistEpiscopal Church showed a net loss of nearly 25,000 members. It is a striking factcontinues the statement, that about one-third of the Protestant churches in the largestdenomination in this country did not add a single member to their rolls during theyear.

The report also shows a very marked slowing up of Sunday School enrollmentand missionary contributions. Mr. Stelzle also states that since 1912 there has beena steady proportionate decrease of interest in religion among women in the UnitedStates. Another fact worthy of note is the fact that the report found only 18 percent ofthe country population is in church membership, although rural people are alwaysregarded as highly religious.

It is a very remarkable thing to me that at the very time people are so interestedin religion, the church is declining rapidly in interest. No statistics are necessary toshow this to be a fact as it is evident to any observing man. Naturally there is only oneplace to look for the cause of this ebbing of power and decay - and that place is in thechurch itself. It is useless to blame the auto, etc. If the facts of God as presented by

the church cannot compete against an automobile, then it is to me abundantevidence that the brand of doctrine taught by the church is a false brand. With theentire civilized globe deadly in earnest in its attempt to discover some actual fact of theexistence of God, and with the church losing ground as fast as it is, is it any wonderthat people by the thousands are questioning the veracity and the correctness of itsteachings?

Never in the history of the civilized race was there such an intense hungeringfor actual knowledge of the things of God. You and I were taught to look to the churchfor such knowledge. But after being honestly weighed in the balances and foundwanting the teachings of the present day church are being discarded in their entirety.In my opinion the only reason that justifies its existence is the fact that one may have a

pretty good social time there if one pleases. Even then one usually finds cliques andfactions in the church, and petty strife and jealousies, etc.

But as far as giving to you or to me one single solitary tangible, scientific fact ofGod - the church cannot do it. It can give us traditions - to be sure. It can also give usdoctrines by the carload. It can also promise us a home in heaven - that we freelygrant. But it is the contention of the author that there is in existence a God that the

19



20/91

church knows nothing about, which God, can, and will, and does give to His people(all are His people) everything right and proper that they can rightfully desire here andnow.

The future is entirely too indefinite to warrant the author sacrificing thepleasures of this life for it, and he would rather have a God which can provide and

help and succor and comfort right here and now, and take a chance on the future.

F. B. R.

20



21/91

Chapter IV

THE BIBLE

The merits of any historical or scientific book depend almost entirely upon the

accuracy of the material within it. For instance, should there appear on the market aUnited States Pharmacopeia (the recognized authority in this country on drugs), andshould there be in this official record statements which were not facts, the element ofdoubt as to the value or authority of the entire volume would be very pertinent.

In the case of the christians bible, in which such things as human souls aredealt with, one would naturally think that God, in ordering this book written, if He did,would take great pains to see that not a single statement in the book could be open toquestion. He certainly would, with the millions of souls at stake, not allow a singlestatement to appear therein which was not true in its entirety.

The christians tell us that the bible shows one how to obtain salvation, or, touse their own words, how to escape from a burning hell of fire and brimstone which

has been prepared for the devil and his angels. The book is supposed to be thepathway to God, if I may use that expression. It is supposed to be the word of God,or in other words it is God speaking to you and I through holy, divinely inspired men,who had received their information, etc., direct from God Himself.

In transmitting these messages to men God sometimes adopted one form andsometimes another. In one place He appears as a burning bush while in another Heappears as a cloud, or a voice, or something or other on that order.

One thing worthy of note is this - whenever God gave these commands to thoseHe had chosen to transmit His divine message, He usually waited until the onechosen was alone. Very seldom are witnesses present. One would think that indelivering to man messages of such stupendous importance God would have seen

to it that more than one man heard the message, but evidently this was not done.It is very significant that the first statement in this bible is a palpable error or

misstatement of the facts as they are known to exist. At the beginning of the book, thedate given us by scholars as to when the world was supposed to have been createdis the year 4004 B.C. Objection may be raised that this date is nota part of the wordof God. But it is given to us as an authentic statement, otherwise it would not beallowed to appear in the book at all. I probably shall be told by the apologists that thisdate was fixed only according to the chronology of Bishop Ussher. But the factremains that it is published between the covers of this book, which is supposed to bethe divinely inspired word of God - true from cover to cover. And the very fact thatthose editing this bible allow it to be inserted is prima facie evidence that they

consider this date to be a fact and to be entirely correct. There is no need ofproponents of the christian religion endeavoring to apologize for or explain thediscrepancy. It is there, and we shall take the book as we find it.

It is scarcely necessary for me to say that science utterly disproves any suchstatement as that one. And where science and the bible clash, the bible must takesecond place as science deals only with facts as they are known to exist. A genuinely

21



22/91

scientific statement is a statement ofknown fact. It cannot be disputed, for it is knownto be correct, and the statement of the bible that the creation of this earth happened inthe year 4004 B.C. is an utterly false statement as every known science bearing uponthe subject at all entirely disproves such a statement.

The unmistakable evidence of the science of geology is that this earth is many

millions of years of age. There can be no mistake about the geological findings as tothe age of this earth.The science of archaeology in turn also utterly disproves any such statement

as to the age of this earth. Paleontology says and proves the very opposite.Comparative philology also gives us unmistakable evidence that the statement isfalse in its entirety. And, by the way, these same sciences also very effectivelycontrovert the bible story that the creation only took six days of time.

This one statement alone, to the thinking man and woman, is quite enough toat least cast a shadow of doubt upon the authenticity of the entire book, and it seemsto be a pity that the book had to begin with a statement which is now known andproven to be scientifically inaccurate and untrue.

However, it may be that Bishop Ussher made a mistake, and it may be thatthere appear no other errors or mis-statements in the entire book. In which case wemay well pass over this first one. Let us not lose sight of the fact however, that we arecalmly, earnestly, intelligently, endeavoring to find out whether or not this christianreligious structure as we have it with us today, and which is founded on this book -the divine word of God, is true or is mistaken in its claims to divine inspiration andfoundation. That is the only thing we are interested in at this time.

So passing over the very evident error in the date given to the creation of manand earth, we shall proceed to investigate a little further. Let me state here, however,that if we find one single error or mis-statement in the entire volume - by no possiblemeans can the volume be considered to be the divinely inspired word of the divine

God. Any volume or teaching originating in God could not possibly have one singleerror or mis-statement in it, remember that.

It will be considered by me an attempt at evasion for anyone to try and explaindiscrepancies false statements and errors in this book. It is published and givento you and I by the exponents of the christian religion as the word of God and youand I since childhood have been taught that it is just that, no more and no less.Millions of people are attending churches that have been built to propagate a religionwhich is founded upon the premise that this bible is the divine revelation from God toman.

If it be a fact, therefore, that we should discover that the bible is nothing of thekind, would it not also be a fact that this entire structure as it exists with us today, and

which calls itself the church, is in error and is teaching error and erroneous truths?Might it not similarly be a fact that, on account of its own religious activities, whichactivities it calls divine, it might very easily be the greatest stumbling block in the

path of the revelation of the real God - should one be found to exist - and one which isnot the God the present day church system preaches?Might not thatvery easily be afact?

22



23/91

Either one of two things here mustbe a fact. Either this christian religion wehave with us, and which is founded on the bible is true or it is false. And we are hereinterested in endeavoring to discover by the laws of evidence which is the case. If thelaws of evidence work and are accepted in our national legal life and if a mans lifeoften hangs upon such laws of evidence, is it then unreasonable to apply the same

laws to a religious system which has been offered us, and which claims itself, notice,to be the one and only true religion?If we should find in this divinely inspired book statements which would not be

accepted in our courts of law on account of their contradictory nature and whichstatements would be thrown out and not allowed to be admitted as evidence, thenwhy should we accept blindly what would notbe accepted in a court of law?

For instance, progressing a little farther into the first book of Genesis, we find inGenesis 7:12 this statement: And the rain was upon the earth 40 days and 40nights. A very plain and definite statement regarding the duration of the flood whichwas supposed to have occurred when God repented Himself in His heart that He hadmade man.

(Here we see that even God Himself makes mistakes according to this text-book, although of course I do not admit it. Neither does anyone else who has areasoning mind.)

But reading a little further in the same and the next chapter we read: and thewaters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days, Gen. 7:24, and after theend of one hundred and fifty days the waters were abated, Gen. 8:3.

Here then, it seems we find another very palpable error and one about whichthere can be no question. At one place in the book we are told that the flood lastedforty days while in another we are told that it lasted one hundred and fifty days.

It is needless for me to call attention to the fact that both of these statementscannot be correct. Either one is correct and the other is incorrect or they are both

incorrect. They both cannot be true. And if it be a fact that either of these statements isin error, then to me at least, it throws a very big doubt upon both the authenticity andthe divine inspiration of the book.

Certainly there could not possibly be any direct connection between the manwho wrote this story and any message he might have received from God. If the storydid nothave its origin in God, then it has no place in a divinely inspired book. And ifthe one who wrote it did nothave a divine revelation, then the story belongssomewhere else, far away from any book claiming to be the divinely inspired word ofGod.

I have enough respect for the God of this world to believe and knowthat therecannot possibly be any mistakes or errors or wrong statements in any book which He

directs. To admit that there could be would be admitting fallibility on the part of God,and that cannot be.

It is not my intention to write a treatise on the bible at all. I am merely attemptingto find out certain things which the man on the street can read and understand, suchthings concerning the divine inspiration of this book.

There are several volumes in existence which go into some depth upon the23



24/91

subject of the mistakes of the bible. The one I like best is written by W. A. Lichten-wallner, entitled Problems Vital to Our Religion. It is very interesting. The publishinghouse whose name the book bears is the Times-Mirror Company of Los Angeles. Iwas unable to get the book from them though, finally obtaining it from Brentanos ofNew York. It is very interesting reading for anyone who is endeavoring to discover what

the bible really is and is not.But to progress. I shall leave out of the question here all references to the orderof creation as given by Moses in the book of Genesis, as the same sciences I haveheretofore mentioned entirely disprove any such a story of creation as Moses hasgiven us in Genesis. Furthermore, it is very questionable in the minds of those whohave taken the trouble to investigate as to whether or not Moses actually did write thePentateuch. There is evidence in the book that he could not possibly have written it butthis part of it I will not touch on here.

I do want to call your attention, however, to the story of the activities of Noahafter leaving the ark. I quote as written. In Genesis 10:20 we read:

And Noah began to be a husbandman and he planted a vineyard; and he

drank of the wine and was drunken. (You will note the very plain language used here.It says Noah was drunk, and the thought arises here that if this man was in the habitof getting drunk, might not the writer of this narrative have been in the same conditionwhen he wrote it? Some of our most brilliant originators of fiction habitually do whatNoah did - get drunk.)

And he was uncoveredwithin his tent. And Ham the father of Canaan saw thenakedness of his father and told his two brethren without.

In the 23rd verse we are told that they took a garment and, walking backwardsso that they would not see their father in his drunken, naked condition, covered himup. In the 24th and 25th verses we are told that Noah woke up and cursed Canaan forcovering him up.

I submit this without much comment to the minds of the reasoning, thinkingmen and women of this land of ours. Do you believe for a moment that this mightyLiving God, the supreme maker of this universe, would pick a drunken sot like thisone to give a divine revelation to? Do you believe that? And may I ask you furtherwhat sort of a divinely inspired book do you think would contain such narrative asthis one?

If this text-book the christians use and upon which their entire religiousstructure is founded publishes such stories as that, what is your reaction to theirclaim that the entire book is the divinely inspired word of God? Do you believe Godinspired such a story as that?

Personally, I must absolutely forbid my little seven-year-old boy Alfred from

reading that story. I have too much regard for his morals to tolerate it for an instant.There are far worse narratives than this one published in the bible book, but it

is not my intention to dwell on them here. I submit to you that what little I have offeredraises the very pertinent question as to whether or not the book is what thechristians claim for it. Personally, I do not believe it. Nor do I believe that God, as Heactually is, had any part or lot in the writing or the inspiring of such stories as this one.

24



25/91

It begins to look as if the evidence is going somewhat against the divineinspiration of this book, does it not? It opens with the statement that this earth and wehumans were created about six thousand years ago. We know that is not true. Then itbranches out into a very improbable story of God repenting Himself that He had mademan, and destroying them all by a flood.

It admits that the only man found righteous in the sight of God got drunk. Inthese days a man who gets drunk is called a drunkard, and who of us believeswhatever comes from the lips of a drunken man?

The preachers will probably rave and howl and denounce both myself and thisbook you are reading, but I face them all with the facts. If they are men they will admitit; if they are but cogs in a machine, they will not admit it for it means their bread andbutter.

The argument will be raised here that the basis of the christian religion is inChrist and not in any chronicles of the old testament. To which I reply that the bible, assold and published today, contains both oldand new testaments and is supposed tobe the divinely inspired word of God - true from cover to cover in its entirety.

And these discrepancies and mis-statements are to be found therein. Andfurthermore, it is upon this book that the entire christian religion, which presumes tobe the one and only true religion, was founded.

I shall not take the time here to consider the claims the christians make thatJesus Christ was divine and a one-third part of God. If I cannot believe one singlestatement in this bible book, and if I find in it one single statement that is false I am

perfectly justified in discarding the entire thing, am I not?If I find in this bible book statements and episodes that I cannot, by reason of

the revolting nature of them, read to my little Alfred, am I not justified in discarding theentire volume as being untrue?I think so.

And if the entire volume is untrue and full of errors and false statements, then is

it not a reasonable presumption that the entire religious structure which has beenfounded upon this book is also false and untrue? I think it is.

Any edifice built upon a foundation which is not strong and solid cannot stand.And any religious structure which is essentially founded upon error, mis-statementand questionable stories, cannot possibly be true. Neither can it possibly endure.

I shall be told here that the church always has existed and always will. Well - itwill not, not as we have it today. This present Protestant church structure is not muchmore than 400 years old yet, and even if it dated back to the time of Christ (which it didnot) what is two thousand years compared to the millions of years man has been onthis old globe?

I make the prediction to you, that this present Protestant religious structure as it

exists today is doomed. It will fall by the weight of its own error - mark my words. Andwhat will probably happen is that some man will arise who will show to this world thetruth of the Living God as He actually exists, and when that time comes what a hollowsham will our present religious structure seem.

What a terrible mess it will be when compared with the Living God, and we mayshow before we finish this book just who and what He actually is. To try and tell an

25



26/91

intelligent thinking public that the christian religion is the one and only true religionand the only one which can reveal God, when such a religion is founded in error,superstition and mis-statement, is asking us to believe too much. The day is goneand gone forever when men and women believe what their fathers and motherstaught them without making an effort to discover whether or not such teachings are

true.

26



27/91

Chapter V

THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE

Had a man questioned the divinity or the inspiration of the bible one hundred

years ago his head probably would have been cut off. Other peoples heads weresevered from their bodies on Boston Commons for making the mild statement thatthey questioned the inspiration of the book we are now discussing.

Times move and change fast, however, and rapidly supplanting thesuperstition of our forefathers is an intense desire to knowthe truth as it exists. TheAmerican is no longer content to believe what someone else believes simplybecause he is asked to. This has been the method of procedure for the past fivehundred and more years, but it is notthe method of today. This is especially true indealing with questions of religion as every man, whether he knows or admits ithimself, is deeply religious.

But to make head or tail out of the tangled mass of religions in this day and age

seems to be a superhuman task. The varying brands given to us today mean nothing.They do not satisfy. And men and women are turning their efforts in other directionsand, strange as it may seem, are securing results outside of any religiousorganization which should have been, and would have been, secured inside thatorganization had the doctrines being taught been true.

There are millions of American business men today who go to church and takesome part or other in its activities. They probably find a little source of social pleasurethere, and then again, the habit has been formed so they attend these services.Sometimes the discourse they listen to is intelligent, and sometimes it is not. It ishard to glean any scientific fact about God or about anything else when the structureitself is founded in error.

If it be a fact that this religious structure of ours is founded in error, then everypulpit in the land that is preaching religion according to the dictates of the bible mustof needs be also teaching and preaching error to its congregation. If the bible is notthe word of God and does notpoint the way to the true God, but to a God of its own,then it mustfollow that those preaching the bible are also preaching a false system ofreligion.

That this might very easily be true, and probably is true, is evidenced by the factthat the more in earnest one is to definitely discover some actual fact about the God ofthe bible the more does he become mired into the mud of doubt and skepticism. Onegoes to one minister and he gets his viewpoint, he goes to another and he finds thereanother viewpoint. One believes in hell-fire while the other does not believe in it.

To me this is evidence of the most convincing kind that very few, if any of them,know whereof they speak and preach when speaking or preaching along religiouslines. If the religion of the present day christian is true, then there mustbe somedefinite underlying rule or law or principle which never varies and which is immutable.There mustbe such a principle and the admission of no such law, rule, or principlethrows very much doubt upon the entire structure.

27



28/91

In chemistry we knowand we know absolutely that H2O is the chemicalformula for water. By no possible means can it ever stand for anything else. Whereverand whenever two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen are chemicallycombined we invariably get water. And it is my contention that underlying any truereligion there must be certain definite rules which actually work and which actually can

be proven to work. The word believe, so prominent in the present day churchstructure, does notanswer the question for to ask a man to believe something that hismentality cannot grasp is asking that man to do a mental and physical impossibility. It

just simply cannot be done. I believe I speak for the masses when I state that not onesingle church member in a hundred million ever believes or ever did believe that oneof his or her loved ones might roast and frizzle and fry in a lake burning with fire andbrimstone forever and ever.

Such a thought as that would drive the average normal human being intoinsanity. And it is not believed. Oh yes, men and women will comply with theconditions necessary to join the church and will say that they believe this and believethat when as a matter of simple fact they do not believe it at all. And did they believe it,

it would make such an impression on them that there would be no living with or nearthem. I do not blame the church members because the blame is not to be placedthere. Nor do I say that I blame the originators and exponents of the system. It hasbeen handed down from father to son and from son to son until we find, if we trace itback far enough, the whole Protestant structure had its origin in the dark ages, wasbred and born in the lap of a disgruntled Roman Catholic priest, and is purely andsimply nothing more nor less than a product of a superstitious age.

We are asked to believe the very same things today that we believed then. Butsome of us refuse to do it. Where I blame the churches and the preachers is for notbeing brave enough to come out into the open and admit the weakness and thefallacy of their own religions, if and when they see such weakness and fallacy.

You must not ask me to believe that one-tenth of one percent of the Protestantministers of today believe for one moment the things their own bible teaches. Theymay believe or think they believe some of them, but actually and literally they do not.And I should not have much use for them if they did. There are many of these noblefellows, however, who are not afraid, and who are proclaiming from their pulpits truthswhich are very foreign to the traditions wherein they have been raised, and theirnumber evidently is increasing. True, many of them have had to be martyrs to thesystem and have lost their jobs but I honor and respect them from the very core ofme, and say to them one and all that they are far better off without their jobs than theywere with them. Whenever too many get kicking over the traces, however, we will findthat the heads of the systems will change their beliefs and their tactics. Whenever they

see that they are disintegrating they will change their gospel, never fear that.That they are already changing it fast is evidenced by the fact that a pamphlet is

already issued by the American Bible Society telling people how to read the bible.They inform us, so to speak, just what part we may believe and what part we maysafely discard. And strange as it may seem the old hell-fire and brimstone doctrineseems to be fast being pushed into the discard.

28



29/91

But it was one of the fundamentals upon which this entire Protestant churchstructure was raised just the same, and if thatdogma must go into the discard whymay not the whole thing go into the discard? If any one part of the bible is open toquestion why is not the whole thing open to question? It is - and this is evidenced bythe fact that a part of it is open to question.

Half-truths do notmake truths, and if, as I stated a while back, there is onesingle false statement in the entire canon of scripture, then the question as to thedivinity of any of it is very pertinent, is it not?

If that be a fact, then where is the divine connection with God Almighty that thechristians claim? Where is it?

As a matter of simple fact, however, I am of the opinion that there is not a singlescintilla of evidence that God Almighty had anything to do with the writing of this book -nor is there one scintilla of evidence that the book itself teaches one single solitaryscientific truth about God.

Certain it is that there was no divine inspiration about the men who wrote thebooks of the bible, and certain it also is that no one knows where most of them came

from. If there is any record of God having anything to do with this bible then it is not amatter of scientific record. Furthermore, we are about to see that not only did this booknothave a divine origin, but on the other hand it had a very human origin.

The present canon of scripture was notput together by divine inspiration ofGod but was put together by a group ofmen who, the records disclose, almost hadfist fights over what books were to be admitted as divine and what books were nottobe admitted as being divine. So then, far from being a divinely inspired book, wesee that the bible was given us by human beings just like you and I, only not quite asintelligent or as well educated.

On what grounds do the christians claim that God had anything to do withtheir bible? Where did the divine inspiration come from? As a matter of scientific fact

and record, many, many books and writings of the same identical origin as thoseinserted in the bible were rejected.And it was a group of men that rejected them, notGod. And it was also a group of men that decided which writings should be admittedas sacred and which should not be so admitted. Where is the divinity there? The factof the matter may be that the only reason the present church thinks these books aredivine is because someone else told them so. It was handed down from father toson.

Why do not the preachers tell the common people of the real origin of the biblebook? Why do they not inform them that Alexander, bishop of Alexandria and Arius,had a fight over the divinity of Christ? Why do not the preachers tell the commonpeople that a council of war consisting of hundreds of bishops was held, this council

cursing and blaspheming Arius for not changing his ideas to suit theirs? Why dothey not tell the people that?

Why do they not tell the common people that there is not much evidence as towhere the writings came from? Those supposed to be written by one man aredefinitely proven notto have been written by him. Why do they not tell the people that?Why do they not tell the people that the Council of Nice, to whom we are indebted for

29



30/91

the present canonical scriptures, did not commit to writing their findings nor is therea single authentic official act of that council on record?

Why do not these preachers, masquerading under the synonym ofambassadors of God, tell the people that there are in existence at least twenty-fiveother books, each of them of the same identical origin as the books now included in

the bible, and some of them far more authentic than those which were admitted asbeing canonical? Why do they not tell the people the truth about the compilation ofthis book of theirs; it might throw considerable light on the subject. And the chancesare that it would cause men and women to think for themselves, and, so thinking,ninety-nine out of every hundred would either greatly modify or entirely discardwhatever beliefs they now entertain as to the divinity of their bible book.

In the Commands of Hermas - one of the most sensible and easily understoodof all the old writings, are statements which, had they been admitted to the presentcanon, would have thrown an entirely different light on the whole subject. And mindyou, these same books are just as authentic as any one in the canon as we have ittoday. Why do not the heads of the Protestant denomination tell the people something

about the three books of Hermas, the Epistle of Clement, the Gospel of Barnabas,and many others? And why also do they not tell the common people that the gospelaccording to St. John was not written until the year 150 A.D.?

Why do they not tell the people that belief in the virgin birth of Christ did notoriginate until over one hundred years after his death? Why do they not tell the peoplethat there is not a single mention made of the virgin birth of Christ in any of thechristian literature immediately following the four gospels and the new testamentepistles?Why do they not tell them that?

And why also do they not point out that if Jesus Christ was, as we are told byPaul in Romans 1:3 Concerning His son our Lord who was born of the seed of Davidaccording to the fleshthat by no possible means could he have had any miraculous

conception? Why do they not point out that when Peter on the day of Pentecost madehis famous speech he stated, when speaking to Jesus, that He was the seed ofDavid (now mark carefully) of the fruit of his loins?

And, as Mr. Lictenwallner so very aptly points out in his book to which I havealready alluded:

It is hardly necessary to state that if he (Christ) was miraculously born withouta human father, he could not have had any of Josephs blood in him and couldnothave been through Joseph of the lineage of David. Both of these viewscannot be correct. One or the other must be wrong.

I shall not consider here in this chapter any claims made by the churchregarding Christ for I believe we have seen to date that the only evidence concerninganything in this entire bible is human evidence and given to us by human beings.There is no evidence that any scriptural writer was divinely inspired to any greaterextent than may you or I be divinely inspired.

Mind you, I am not questioning the divine or miraculous birth of Christ, as we30



31/91

shall probably see later just what he was and what he was not, but that is beside thepoint here. What I have tried to show is that the bible as a whole was written in a veryquestionable manner, by practically unknown writers (a good many of them) and at notime nor in any manner is there shown any evidence whatsoever of miraculous ordivine origin. And if it does not show that, then it should be placed in its proper place

and that is with the rest of the ancient writings of that day and age. If any part of theNew Testament is divinely inspired there is no evidence of it. If any part of the NewTestament is of such inspiration then the discarded books of the bible, Hermas,Clement, Barnabas, etc., are just as much inspired and should be in the presentcanon.

Why do not the preachers tell the people that this same council at Nicequestioned the right of Jude, the Epistles of James, Pauls Epistle to the Hebrews, thebook of Revelations, 2 Peter, and others, to have any place in the canon as we haveit? It at least would make interesting reading if every church member knew the originof this bible book, to say the least.

But such information, however, seems to be

frank b. robinson - the god nobody knows

Documents